    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     MARKUP OF H.R. 3224, H.R. 2843, COMMITTEE RESOLUTION 111-6, COMMITTEE
                   RESOLUTION 111-7, H.R. 3542, AND H.R. 3489

    =======================================================================

                                    MEETING

                                   before the

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                    HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 4, 2009

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

                           Available on the Internet:
       http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    54-018                    WASHINGTON : 2009
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California,             DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California,
      Vice-Chairwoman                      Ranking Minority Member
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    KEVIN McCARTHY, California
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
    SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
                          Jamie Fleet, Staff Director
                   Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director

     MARKUP OF H.R. 3224, H.R. 2843, COMMITTEE RESOLUTION 111-6, COMMITTEE
                   RESOLUTION 111-7, H.R. 3542, AND H.R. 3489

                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                          WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2009

                              House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m., in Room
    1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady
    [chairman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Davis of
    California, Davis of Alabama, Lungren, McCarthy, and Harper.
        Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Staff Director; Tom Hicks,
    Senior Elections Counsel; Jennifer Daehn, Elections Counsel;
    Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson,
    Press Director; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; Daniel
    Favarulo, Legislative Assistant, Elections; Shervan Sebastian,
    Staff Assistant; Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director;
    Peter Schalestock, Minority Counsel; Karin Moore, Minority
    Legislative Counsel; Salley Collins, Minority Press Secretary;
    and Mary Sue Englund, Minority Professional Staff.
        The Chairman. I would like to call the Committee on House
    Administration to order.
        We have a number of items on today's agenda. But before we
    begin, I would like to let members know that we have a
    completed calendar for the committee for the 110th Congress,
    and it is available for your review.
        I plan to take up H.R. 3224, H.R. 2843, Committee
    Resolution 111-6, and Committee Resolution 111-7 en bloc.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Does anyone have anything to say on these
    items?
        If there is no objection we order the two bills favorably
    reported and pass the two committee resolutions.
        With regard to Committee Resolution 111-6 regarding Voucher
    Documentation Standards, I agree that we will take up the
    security and printing documentation requirement on the next
    markup. So we are adopting the committee resolution excluding
    those two provisions, and we will work with all and any to
    resolve the differences between now and then.
        And members may insert for the record on all these matters.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mr. Lungren, I would like to recognize you
    for any comments.
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        You have accurately reflected the agreement we have entered
    into, with respect to the various bills we are talking about
    today. I appreciate the comity, and I thank you for working so
    well with us.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        So, without objection, H.R. 3224, H.R. 2843 are ordered
    reported favorably to the House, and then Committee Resolutions
    111-6 and 111-7 are adopted.
        All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
        None opposed.
        So ordered; they are adopted.
        The next item on the agenda is H.R. 3542, the ``State
    Admission Day Recognition Act of 2009.''
        This bill, which was introduced by Ranking Member Lungren
    would commemorate each State's admission to the Union by
    directing the Architect to fly a State's flag over the Capitol
    on the anniversary date of its admission, beginning with
    Delaware, the first State.
        I understand that the ranking member has concerns about the
    disposition of the flags. And I commit to working with him to
    word the regulations to provide that, during the first year of
    commemorating, the flags would be delivered to the Governor of
    each State or territory and that, in the future years, the
    Governors will have the option to deliver these flags to
    universities, high schools, and elementary schools.
        I now would like to recognize the sponsor of this
    legislation, the ranking member, Mr. Lungren, for an opening
    statement.
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    bringing this bill to the committee. I am pleased to have
    authored this legislation, brought to me by one of my
    constituents, at least the suggestion was.
        It instructs the Architect of the Capitol to fly flags of
    each individual State of these United States over the Capitol
    Building on the anniversary of the admission of that State into
    the Union. As the embodiment of the phrase which appears on the
    seal of the United States, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' meaning, ``Out
    of Many, One,'' the flying of the States' flags will honor each
    State for their contribution to our country.
        Additionally, this legislation supports the concept that
    our Nation was created to be a Federal system as opposed to a
    centrally based system of government and will serve as a
    reminder of the unique ideas incorporated by our Founding
    Fathers in drafting the Constitution and the charge we carry
    forward as stewards of our Nation.
        And I urge support of my colleagues and thank the chairman
    for bringing the bill before our committee.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        And I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 3542.
    Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed
    with, and the bill is considered as read and open for amendment
    at any point.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. The Chair now would like to offer an
    amendment, which is in the members' packet and which would
    provide greater specifics about how the bill would operate and
    authorize the issuance of regulations.
        Without objection, the amendment is considered as read.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. And I now would like to again ask the ranking
    member for any comments.
        Mr. Lungren. I support the chairman's amendment and ask for
    its adoption.
        The Chairman. Is there any additional debate on the
    amendment? If not, the question is on the amendment.
        All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
        Any opposed?
        So ordered. The ayes have it, in the opinion of the Chair,
    and the amendment is agreed to.
        Are there any additional amendments?
        If not, I now move to report H.R. 3542 favorably to the
    House, as amended.
        All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
        Any opposed, ``No.''
        So ordered. The ayes have it, in opinion of the Chair. And
    the bill, as amended, is ordered reported to the House.
        Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
    table.
        The next item on the agenda is H.R. 3489, a bill to amend
    the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
        This bill will protect persons residing in a house subject
    to foreclosure proceedings or in an area which has been
    affected by a natural disaster from challenges by election
    officials to their eligibility to register to vote.
        Because our voter registration system is based on people's
    residence, the current foreclosure crisis has the potential to
    do considerable damage to the integrity of the Nation's
    elections.
        Reports surfaced during the 2008 presidential election that
    political operatives planned to use lists of foreclosed
    properties in Michigan and Ohio to challenge voters' residency.
    Election officials around the country reportedly received
    numerous questions from foreclosed homeowners regarding their
    voting status.
        But there is no rational basis for using foreclosure lists
    to challenge a voter's eligibility. Otherwise-eligible voters
    may be renting a foreclosed home or working with a bank to
    refinance. And voters displaced by hurricanes and other natural
    disasters should have the right to vote in communities in which
    they intend to return.
        H.R. 3489 is an important bill that will help ensure the
    integrity of our elections. It has been a long time since there
    were property requirements for voting. We should act now to
    ensure that voters do not lose their civil right to vote
    because they have lost or may lose their homes. I strongly urge
    support of this bill.
        And I would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr.
    Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I knew that, despite the comity and our agreement on most
    everything, there would be times in which we would disagree.
        Whenever this committee deals with something as sensitive
    as an individual's constitutional right to vote and to not have
    that vote diluted by fraudulent votes, I think we must act
    carefully and deliberately. And when it comes to fundamental
    rights, I would hope that we would not tinker with the law
    based on mere accusations or mere possibilities.
        Yet, as I examine this legislation, I fear that is exactly
    where we are headed. Far from being just unnecessary, I feel
    the legislation could be dangerous to the health of our
    electoral system.
        The two separate prongs of the bill, dealing with the
    victims of natural disasters and individuals facing
    foreclosure, both carry their own set of concerns.
        The most staggering implication of the provision
    prohibiting the challenge of voters in areas that have been
    declared a natural disasters is its breadth. The wording of the
    bill suggests that it would be impossible to challenge anyone
    for any reason if they happen to be in a disaster area.
        For example, in the event that someone attempted to vote
    fraudulently under the name of a person known to be deceased or
    an individual who is known to not be a citizen of the United
    States, it would not be possible to challenge that individual,
    the person attempting to vote, if they live in an area that has
    been declared a disaster area. There is no limiting language to
    suggest that the challenge has to be one based solely on
    residency.
        In addition, there is zero language in the bill that would
    limit how long the prohibition against challenges would last in
    disaster areas. Under the current language of the bill, any
    area that has been declared by the President to be a disaster
    area at any time--no limit--would be subject to a complete ban
    on challenges of any kind. A disaster may have happened and
    recovery completed decades ago, yet the wording of this bill
    would permit no challenges to be brought in these areas. So the
    scope of the provision is truly staggering.
        Presumably, this portion of the bill was drafted to cover
    situations like that which occurred to the victims in Hurricane
    Katrina. Yet the two States affected most by that disaster,
    Mississippi and Louisiana, have both filed letters of
    opposition with the committee.
        In their letters, both secretaries of State's offices--that
    is, of the States most directly affected--detailed the ways in
    which they have already made provisions for displaced voters
    under State law. I would like unanimous consent to enter both
    of those letters into the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lungren. Regarding the foreclosure provision, I can
    understand my colleagues' concerns, given the high number of
    foreclosures. And this particularly affects my State. In fact,
    it particularly affects my district. We do have a large number
    of foreclosures. We have had people who have left our area
    after their house has been foreclosed.
        At times, when they have left, we found that, not only were
    they living there, but we have had some major marijuana growing
    going on in houses in my district that have been foreclosed.
        But to thus my knowledge--and we have not held a hearing on
    this bill, so I can't say for certain--the only basis for the
    foreclosures provision in this bill is a posting on one blog
    citing statements by party representatives that were vehemently
    denied by those who purportedly uttered them. Both parties even
    signed court documents stating they would not use foreclosure
    lists. I have certainly not seen any evidence that foreclosure
    lists were used to challenge voters.
        In my last election, as I mentioned, I was the subject of
    suppression calls to try and limit the number of people voting
    in my district at a crucial time, on the afternoon of the
    election. But I haven't seen any evidence nor do I know
    anything about people being denied their right to vote because
    people used foreclosure lists.
        But even if this were an actual problem, I believe this
    committee could find a more prudent way to protect the affected
    voters. Rather than narrowly focusing on voters affected by
    foreclosure lists as was written, the bill now goes far beyond
    that and establishes a new Federal, quote/unquote, ``good
    cause'' standard by which all voter challenges would be
    measured.
        So we are told that this bill deals with the question of
    foreclosure and deals with the other problem of people in
    natural disaster areas, but it goes far beyond that and creates
    this new standard, good faith standard, to which all voter
    challenges would be measured. And this is without the benefit
    of defining what ``good cause'' would be, even having a hearing
    on what we are talking about.
        I think it would be of great benefit to both the intended
    beneficiaries of the bill and those who would be charged with
    its implementation if the bill were referred to the
    Subcommittee on Elections for a hearing.
        Yet, if the committee proceeds in considering the
    legislation, I would hope, at a minimum, the chairman and my
    colleagues would adopt the amendments we plan to offer to
    address a number of these issues, not to getting rid of the
    final import of this bill but trying to limit its application
    because of the concerns that I have expressed.
        And, with that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        And I would like to recognize the chairwoman of the
    Elections Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren, for the purpose of a
    statement.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, first, I would ask unanimous
    consent that documents related to the bill be made a part of
    the record. That would be articles from The New York Times, the
    Michigan Messenger, The Columbus Dispatch; the NAACP Legal
    Defense Fund memo and court order on the case of Herring v.
    Marion County; advisories and press releases from Maryland,
    Ohio, Nevada, Missouri, and Minnesota on challenges related to
    home foreclosure; information regarding the home foreclosure
    and voting bill that passed the Michigan House of
    Representatives last year; as well as letters from the
    Leadership Conference on Civil Rights regarding challenges
    related to home foreclosures.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, it is important that--and we all
    agree on this--that eligible voters be permitted to vote. And
    the use of foreclosure lists to challenge voters has, actually,
    nothing to do with a voter's eligibility.
        Placement of a house on public foreclosure notice doesn't
    say anything about a voter's eligibility. Foreclosure notices
    reflect ownership, not residence, as, for example, eligible
    voters may be renting a foreclosed home. In addition, a
    foreclosure notice does not require anyone to leave his or her
    home, and many homeowners, in fact, do remain in their homes
    well after foreclosure proceedings begin, as they negotiate
    with lenders in an attempt to refinance.
        I would add that the other element to this is that
    individuals who are in foreclosure proceedings are often very
    distraught and sometimes even ashamed of what has happened to
    them financially. And to have the humiliation of being
    challenged off a foreclosure list in front of your neighbors at
    your polling place is something that I think is to be avoided.
        As to the natural disaster element, I think it is worth
    noting, in the case, for example, of the Katrina hurricane,
    that people who maintain their residence, their lawful
    residence, in the zone in some cases took a very long time to
    return. And it is important that those people who maintain
    their legal residence but were displaced have an opportunity to
    continue to vote once in their legal residence.
        So I think this is an important step forward. I hope that
    we can adopt the bill.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. I thank the lady.
        Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like unanimous consent to submit for the record a
    USA Today article in which the Macomb Republican county
    chairman named in the MichiganMessenger blog post denies he
    ever intended to use foreclosure lists and demands a
    retraction.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you.
        I would like to take just a minute to expand on a point
    that my colleague from California brought up in his opening
    statement.
        After Hurricane Katrina, one of the many problems facing my
    home State of Mississippi was how to deal with displaced
    voters. The secretary of State, along with our State
    legislature, saw that challenge and met it with legislation
    addressing the problem.
        I find it both presumptive and perhaps somewhat arrogant
    that this committee is considering legislation today having not
    consulted with the States this legislation would affect the
    most.
        In a letter opposing the legislation we are considering
    today, Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann offered
    a frank assessment of H.R. 3489, declaring it to be unwise and
    an attempt to Federalize challenges to voter qualifications.
        Secretary Hosemann further explained in his letter that
    this bill poses a serious threat to the integrity of our
    election system by undermining legitimate challenges to voter
    qualification. As an example, he detailed circumstances in
    which a registered voter may be protected from challenge due to
    the locale in the case of a disaster area, despite failing to
    meet the most basic requirement of election law: citizenship.
        When States are responding to their citizens' needs in the
    wake of a natural disaster, what they need is flexibility, not
    a blanket Federal mandate that will handcuff them to one course
    of action. I hope the committee will consider moving this
    misguided and unnecessary legislation and encourage you to vote
    ``no.''
        Thank you, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Any other statements?
        We do have four votes on the floor. I was hoping we could
    probably get through before that, but it doesn't look like it
    can happen because there are other amendments to this bill. So
    what I would like to do is just recess until the last vote and
    come back and reconvene and just finish this bill up. Okay?
        Thank you all. We are now in recess until the last vote on
    the floor.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. I would like to call the Committee on House
    Administration back to order.
        And I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 3489.
    Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed
    with, and the bill is considered as read and open to amendments
    at any point.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Is there any debate?
        Yes, Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Mr. Lungren. In fact, I have three amendments.
        The Chairman. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. This will be the first amendment.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Amendment No. 1. The Chair recognizes Mr.
    Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses
    fundamental ambiguity in the bill as written and, as I see it,
    a danger in the language of the bill. And it attempts to
    address it by striking the amorphous new standard merely
    defined as ``good cause.''
        Right now, the bill would override all States' laws on
    voter challenges and say that challenges cannot be made except
    for, quote/unquote, ``good cause,'' which is not defined in
    this bill. It then provides a nonexclusive list of two things
    that are not good cause, leaving it to creative lawyers in
    every State and local court in the Nation to decide what else
    might not be good cause.
        Mr. Chairman, rather than creating a broad new threshold
    that will undoubtedly lead to conflicting interpretations, I
    would hope that the bill would be narrowly and clearly drafted
    to approach this issue. This is achieved by explicitly
    addressing the two targets of the bill: foreclosure proceedings
    and natural disaster areas.
        Additionally, the original wording of the bill is so broad
    that it may inadvertently prevent valid challenges. For
    example, if hard evidence exists demonstrating that an
    individual is registered and voting in another jurisdiction,
    the bill might block a challenge just because the person also
    claims to reside in a natural disaster area or to have had a
    foreclosure.
        The amendment would make it clear that only challenges
    based solely on those factors and not challenges based on other
    evidence where those factors might be present. It is an attempt
    to try and refine the bill and hopefully not override all of
    the law that currently exists, having been developed over the
    years with all of the States dealing with challenges in their
    jurisdictions.
        And I would hope I could get the support of my colleagues.
    And I will yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief because
    I know that you want to move us to the other amendments, but
    two observations.
        First of all, I think everyone understands, especially my
    friend, the former attorney general of California, that
    forfeiture is a process--or foreclosure, rather, is a process.
    A notice of foreclosure is no more the termination or the end
    of a process than an arrest or an indictment is the end of a
    criminal process.
        I don't think that anyone on the other side of the aisle
    would propose that if someone were arrested that we go through
    and we comb the list of people who have been arrested and try
    to use that to challenge their capacity to vote. The legal or
    the technical capacity is there to do that, but I don't think
    anyone believes that would be a good thing to do from the
    standpoint of public policy.
        It strikes me that, if we use a foreclosure proceeding, or
    the initiation of a foreclosure proceeding, as the basis to
    challenge a voter's suffrage, that is not fundamentally
    different from using an arrest record as the basis to do it,
    that obviously do not result in convictions.
        Second observation: Several years ago, I introduced a bill
    that would have dealt with the problem of displaced voters
    after a natural disaster. The bill was not marked up in
    committee, but I thought that it was an important way to
    resolve the clear ambiguities that exist and that occurred
    after Katrina, when someone is knocked out of their home, they
    don't have a permanent place to live.
        But since that approach wasn't adopted, frankly the bill
    that we have today seems to me to be the next best thing. It
    provides some safe haven for people who may have been affected
    by a natural disaster. And, again, not having acted on the bill
    I proposed several years ago, I think that this is a good
    alternative. So I would certainly urge the rejection of this
    amendment on those grounds.
        I will yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Anyone else wish to speak on the amendment?
        If not, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr.
    Lungren.
        All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
        Those opposed, say, ``No.''
        In opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        I would now like to recognize Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment. This
    is Amendment No. 3. It is the 18-month expiration.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as having been read.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. And the gentleman is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would establish a
    sunset for the application of the restrictions on challenges
    involved in a disaster area.
        Right now, there is absolutely no limitation whatsoever. It
    could be decades later, a year later, or years later. By
    providing an 18-month timeline for the disaster--that is, a
    limit of 18 months after the disaster declaration--we would
    protect against the application of the provisions to an event
    many years past. For example, without a sunset on the
    eligibility of an event, one might be able to argue that a
    natural disaster from the 1980s prevented a voter eligibility
    challenge today.
        The amendment is simply clarifying to ensure that the
    purpose of the remedy is appropriately applied, and the 18-
    month period is the same period that FEMA provides temporary
    housing for disaster victims. So I would hope we would get
    support for this limiting amendment.
        And, with that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think in some ways the amendment actually points to the
    reason that we should have the legislation before us. And I
    think that the 18 months--I mean, we just have to think about
    the number of people in Katrina that were affected and how long
    it took for them to get back. I think about some of the fires
    in San Diego, where people had to wait, you know, a good 2
    years before they even got their insurance to okay their
    development plans.
        And so I think that trying to put a time limit on this, I
    think, is really too limiting. It may be that, you know, 10
    years out would be reasonable, but someone could argue that
    that is not necessarily appropriate either.
        So I think trying to have it--personal responsibility here
    is really important, and people have a number of reasons that
    they have to leave the area in which they choose to vote. And I
    think that we need to be open on this one.
        The Chairman. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief again.
        Just 1 month ago, there was a group of folks who came to my
    office who were previously residents of New Orleans. This is,
    by my count, approximately 4 years after Katrina, a little bit
    more than 4 years. These individuals, who I think right now are
    living in the Mobile/Baldwin County area, would love to return
    to New Orleans. They never got the assistance the government
    promised them 4 years ago. And they are exactly in that gray
    area that my bill several years ago sought to address: people
    who were displaced because of Katrina, individuals who have not
    gotten the assistance that was promised them, who have every
    desire and intent to return to their original domicile.
        The problem with the amendment is natural disasters can
    have a long-running consequence. Katrina may be a worst case,
    but it is a worst case that many individuals are living with.
        So, again, I agree with my friend from California that
    there is surely some reasonable time period that we could agree
    on. But it absolutely is not 18 months if people are coming to
    see me 4 years later, much less what would have happened in the
    time frame 18 months from Katrina.
        I will yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Any other discussion on the amendment?
        Hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by
    Mr. Lungren, No. 3.
        All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
        Those opposed, say, ``No.''
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have a last amendment.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as having been read.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. And the gentleman is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Lungren. This amendment goes to the point that Mr.
    Davis made just a moment ago about the initiation of
    foreclosure. It is also a point that was made by Ms. Lofgren
    when we were here earlier.
        So, while we can all agree that simply having a foreclosure
    proceeding initiated would not be enough to indicate the person
    no longer lives there and therefore is not an eligible voter,
    when a foreclosure is completed and individuals have left the
    residence in question, I think we can agree that this should be
    eligible evidence to challenge a voter. It is not conclusive
    evidence, but it is evidence that would allow the challenge.
        This legislation should not preclude challenges based on
    concrete evidence that an individual no longer resides in the
    home. And the amendment makes clear that this legislation
    applies only to--that this legislation would apply to completed
    foreclosures and not just pending foreclosures, as was the
    complaint raised by the gentleman from Alabama.
        And so I am attempting to try and deal with the issue that
    he mentioned, and hope that this would gain his support and the
    support of others on the committee.
        And, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. If I understand the gentleman's
    amendment correctly, there is still a problem with scope. The
    fact that a foreclosure may be affected still doesn't
    necessarily speak to who actually owns the property and who
    actually may be voting.
        For example, I think someone mentioned earlier that someone
    could be a resident of a foreclosed home, but, again, the fact
    that there is a foreclosure notice doesn't necessarily goes to
    their status, in terms of whether or not they are still in that
    jurisdiction.
        So I am concerned that, once again, the gentleman's
    amendment is going to sweep in a group of people--and whether
    it is a narrow group or a large group, we don't know; whether
    people have a right to exercise the capacity to vote--that it
    is going to sweep in a group of people who were, frankly, not
    intended to be reached by the amendment. And that is why I
    would urge its rejection.
        The Chairman. Any other question on the amendment? Any
    other speakers?
        The question of the amendment is over Mr. Lungren.
        All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
        Those opposed, ``No.''
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        I now move to report H.R. 3489 favorably to the House.
        All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
        Any opposed?
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill
    is ordered.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, on that I would ask for a
    recorded vote.
        The Chairman. The clerk would call the roll.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano?
        Mr. Capuano. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis?
        Mrs. Davis of California. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis?
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren?
        Mr. Lungren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Harper?
        Mr. Harper. No.
        The Clerk. Chairman Brady?
        The Chairman. Aye.
        The vote is four ayes, two against. The bill passes.
        And, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid
    upon the floor.
        Without objection, the staff will be authorized to make any
    necessary technical and conforming changes to the matters
    considered today.
        And the committee meeting on House Administration now
    stands adjourned. Thank you all.
        [Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]